This blog presents news items and resources relating to trial advocacy and the legal system, with a focus on Washington State. It was developed to support the Trial Advocacy Program at the University of Washington School of Law, but now has a broader coverage and a wider audience. In addition to information about trials and trial practice, you'll find notes about appellate practice, the courts, access to justice, and related topics.

[The lawyer's] responses to the prosecutor's objections and the trial judge's comments reveal that he fundamentally misunderstood the marital privilege, and thus lacked the legal understanding necessary for a competent tactical decision. [The lawyer] plainly believed that he could prevent [defendant's wife] from testifying as to certain “confidential” conversations between her and [the defendant] * * *, but that he could pick and choose other parts of the conversations they had and elicit testimony as to [the defendant's] versions of those exchanges to bolster his defense.

* * *Fundamentally, [the lawyer] had no conception of the most basic premise of the spousal privilege and could therefore not make competent tactical decisions regarding it. He did not recognize that all private communications between spouses are “presumed to have been made in confidence.” * * Correspondingly, [he] showed no understanding that courts narrowly construe the privilege because it “prevent[s] the admission of relevant and otherwise admissible evidence” and impedes the search for truth. * * * Given [the lawyer's] evident misconceptions about the nature and scope of the marital privilege, [he] was incapable of making competent tactical decisions of the sort the state court (and the dissent) imagines.